I'm not one to get overly excited by upcoming gadgets, but I'm reallly looking forward to the Moto 360. I can't even explain it; I don't regularly wear a watch, I use Google Now moderately (hell, I work from home), but I'm truly excited to see what happens.

I guess the "delight" of using the Moto X has turned me into a fan. Not a fanboy. A grown up... fanman? Ugh.

It's not the full schedule - as always they're adding more stuff the days before the IO. Last years G+ Sessions were also almost only about the G+ sign-in on any single platform, something that doesn't needs to be repeated. Quote from another site:"Google has told us to “sit tight,” as today’s schedule is only the first set of sessions to be announced."

Something they should make easier is the usage of different focusing and exposure metering areas. They introduced some kind of api for that years ago but it was so complex and useless (because of different hardware implementations) that I can remember only one camera app that made use of it (ShotControl).

I accidently converted my gmail account into a Google+ profile a few days ago by not paying attention when Google popped up a "convert" button under my mouse pointer.

Fortunately, I found that I could go to settings and delete my Google+ profile. And when doing that, you get a nice text box to explain why you are sadly choosing to delete your lovely Google+ profile.

It was so fun to fill out that box, I created and deleted another Google+ profile just so I could do it again.

I accidently converted my gmail account into a Google+ profile a few days ago by not paying attention when Google popped up a "convert" button under my mouse pointer.

Fortunately, I found that I could go to settings and delete my Google+ profile. And when doing that, you get a nice text box to explain why you are sadly choosing to delete your lovely Google+ profile.

It was so fun to fill out that box, I created and deleted another Google+ profile just so I could do it again.

I saw that box the other day. I hadn't logged into my YouTube account in probably years then did the other day and it automatically created a Google+ account for it with a notice I could delete said account after a short period of time. I waited and went through the delete process and noticed one of the answers was "I don't want a Google+ account", which is what I checked. For one thing I have three different accounts I use for various Google services. One is my website stuff and on that I have my real name and information and don't even want a Google+ account there. Then there's my tablet for which I created another account with a pseudonym because I sure don't want my tablet hooked up to my "real" account. Lastly is my YouTube account which, when I bother to log in, is just for entertainment.

I can understand why some people would want everything Google connected and at some point maybe I'll want more of a web presence and want a Google+ account or some such but as much as they'd like to be, Google just is not the be-all, end-all of the internet world.

Since ART seems to be a rather low-level component, can we safely assume that it will be part of AOSP, and therefore open source? Or is there any chance that it will continue Google's trend of replacing open source components with proprietary ones?

Since ART seems to be a rather low-level component, can we safely assume that it will be part of AOSP, and therefore open source? Or is there any chance that it will continue Google's trend of replacing open source components with proprietary ones?

ART is open source and is in AOSP now. At least, the experimental implementation that shipped with KitKat is.

I think the strategy is to close off the good, consumer parts of Android, like most of the user apps and interface things. It's hugely beneficial to have the framework-level stuff that makes apps work be open source. I think the general idea is that Google wants the platform to be open source and able to run on any device, but when you want to make a useful, consumer product, they want you to come talk to them and get a license.

I was content to merely not participate in Google+ but for the past year it seems Google has been shoving it down my throat and I now actively hate it. No wonder it is getting a re-branding.

Yeah, the schizophrenic hot/cold approach is fascinating. In the long run, I really feel like it will push people away from their cloud services if they feel like Google can't be trusted not to get bored with a strategic direction, and when they do have a strategic direction they push it at the expense of what the users actually want. Time to focus on the "middle path," and just focus on making cool stuff that people actually want. Hopefully they can stick to it for longer than outfits stay in fashion.

Since ART seems to be a rather low-level component, can we safely assume that it will be part of AOSP, and therefore open source? Or is there any chance that it will continue Google's trend of replacing open source components with proprietary ones?

ART is open source and is in AOSP now. At least, the experimental implementation that shipped with KitKat is.

I think the strategy is to close off the good, consumer parts of Android, like most of the user apps and interface things. It's hugely beneficial to have the framework-level stuff that makes apps work be open source. I think the general idea is that Google wants the platform to be open source and able to run on any device, but when you want to make a useful, consumer product, they want you to come talk to them and get a license.

I think where your theory falls down is that its "the platform" which is of significantly more value to OEMs, not the XML/Resources of the client-side apps which any OEM can duplicate by building apps on the platform. Taking away from the platform would be much more effective to that end.

The power/character of the Google apps is on Google servers, and its the Google apps connection to the servers which makes them valuable, not so much the apps in and of themselves.

If Google replaces the Core libraries with the set of new (green) libraries on the left of the Figure - wouldn't that render the Oracle lawsuit moot since the disputed APIs are in those libraries?

Only for devices sold with the new version of Android that hasn't even been officially announced yet.

Oracle filed suit in August 2010, which means the lawsuit only covers things that happened *before* that date. It doesn't cover anything that happened between then and now, let alone going on into the future.

I hated G+ from day one because it seemed to be a reaction (and therefore a game of catch-up) to several other company's products which I also hated (Facebook, LinkedIn). This "me-too"-ism is mostly bad because it is focused on competitors instead of being focused on customers. But I hated G+ even more because Google seemed to be intentionally sacrificing working products (Reader, Wave) to drive G+ adoption, and yet G+ didn't provide the same functionality as the products they were shutting down. There is still no equivalent of Wave or the pre-nerfing Reader.

I was a huge Google fan-person before they dropped Wave, nerfed Reader, and then dropped Reader. I was so enamoured with them that I was eager to overlook the privacy issues with the street view cars capturing WiFi transmissions and all that. I was convinced that they Meant Well, were Doing The Right thing and were Misunderstood. But when they seemed to be forcibly trying to "convert" their users to their own "Facebook killer" without providing superior functionality compared to the the things they killed OR the thing they were competing with, my rose-tinted classes shattered and I got glass in my eye. I swore I was going to extricate myself from the Google system. Tellingly, I still haven't done so. They have me in their grasp and I hate it.

But.

There were several things which made Google great before G+:1) Good actions and ideas came first, success came second second, It was better to do The Right Thing than to profit from it. They hired brilliant people and encouraged them to build whatever they wanted.2) No exploitation of working products: use of any particular Google product wasn't predicated on participating in some other Google product in some way (although there are caveats there, but let's stay focused - as hard as that is for me...)3) Google was a leader instead of a follower. This is a highly contentious subject (hello iOS/Android/Sun/Oracle debate...) but Google already had huge social and business momentum before this was a topic of debate. They made a name for themselves providing tremendous value (obsoleting AltaVista and Yahoo) in exchange for advertising and information about what people wanted to know about what's on the Internet.

If Google dials G+ back to "You can have free OAuth if you want it and you can also safely[Citation Needed] share content with it too" that would be a huge step towards restoring the original non-evil Google I loved several years ago. If they fix the community issues with Android (is it Open Source or not?), that would be another step forward. If they fix the international tax concerns (and my own employer could improve in this area too), that would be another step forward. Add improved transparency and more individual data control and then I'm going to start to think we're going back to a time when I thought Google was going to be the company which broke the mold.

Hey Google! I desperately wanted to work for you 10 years ago. I don't want to work for you now. Please return to being a company I want to work for again. Not for my sake, but for the sake of the whole world. Go back to focusing on providing value and letting success be a natural outcome of that.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me, fool me again, then admit your mistakes and address all my concerns - well I don't even know if a company has ever done that before. Can we try that?

If Google replaces the Core libraries with the set of new (green) libraries on the left of the Figure - wouldn't that render the Oracle lawsuit moot since the disputed APIs are in those libraries?

Only for devices sold with the new version of Android that hasn't even been officially announced yet.

Oracle filed suit in August 2010, which means the lawsuit only covers things that happened *before* that date. It doesn't cover anything that happened between then and now, let alone going on into the future.

I think the remedy that Oracle is hoping for is an injunction based on the use of Java's supposedly copyrightable APIs. If Google replaces the disputed API then there is no basis for an injunction - they could only ask for past damages which would likely be much less significant than the bargaining power obtained from an injunction.

Even if things go well for Oracle (Supreme Court does not hear an appeal and the case goes back to the district court for a retrial of fair use issue) it would take at least a year to get any judgment (which again can be appealed). By that time, the new APIs might be released. It's probably possible to remap the API calls for existing compiled apps (if the developer does not want to rewrite and recompile).

Copyright in the US lasts about 100 years (unlike patents). Why take a risk?

If Google replaces the Core libraries with the set of new (green) libraries on the left of the Figure - wouldn't that render the Oracle lawsuit moot since the disputed APIs are in those libraries?

Only for devices sold with the new version of Android that hasn't even been officially announced yet.

Oracle filed suit in August 2010, which means the lawsuit only covers things that happened *before* that date. It doesn't cover anything that happened between then and now, let alone going on into the future.

I think the remedy that Oracle is hoping for is an injunction based on the use of Java's supposedly copyrightable APIs. If Google replaces the disputed API then there is no basis for an injunction - they could only ask for past damages which would likely be much less significant than the bargaining power obtained from an injunction.

Even if things go well for Oracle (Supreme Court does not hear an appeal and the case goes back to the district court for a retrial of fair use issue) it would take at least a year to get any judgment (which again can be appealed). By that time, the new APIs might be released. It's probably possible to remap the API calls for existing compiled apps (if the developer does not want to rewrite and recompile).

Copyright in the US lasts about 100 years (unlike patents). Why take a risk?

Oracle doesn't want an injunction, they want a percentage of every android handset sold, just like the one already being paid to Microsoft. And they want it retroactively applied to devices sold before 2010.

The smoking gun is that Google tried to get a license off Sun, and when the amount of money Sun asked for was too high, Google created Dalvik instead which is clearly flirting copyright law if not violating it. Sun didn't have enough money/lawyers to sue Google, so nothing happened, but then they were purchased by Oracle.

It will be interesting to see where this case goes, Google might still win. It's clear they were *trying* not to violate copyright, but they're also doing something that would normally be considered copyright violation.

"Dalvik is the virtual machine that runs Android apps. When you see Android apps running on other platforms like BlackBerry OS, Linux, or Windows, those products are really implementing Dalvik—it's the engine that Android apps run on. Dalvik was originally built to be small—not fast or battery efficient—so that it would fit on the modest phone storage of several years ago."

Dalvik is virtual machine, what is running top of the Linux operating system.

You can get Dalvik to run on different platforms of course as it is just a virtual machine. But Android is just a Linux distribution like Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian or any other Linux distribution. Nothing else, but designed only to mobile devices instead servers, workstations or laptops.

The smoking gun is that Google tried to get a license off Sun, and when the amount of money Sun asked for was too high, Google created Dalvik instead which is clearly flirting copyright law if not violating it. Sun didn't have enough money/lawyers to sue Google, so nothing happened, but then they were purchased by Oracle.

Google did NOT create Dalvik. The Dalvik was one man project what was bought by Android Inc. Then much later Google bought Android Inc.

And Sun didn't want to sue Android Inc or Google (after purchasing Android Inc what already used Dalvik) because it was not using Java.

The Oracle lost by logical reason, but now the whole circus has brought up back because someone believes that API should be under copyright, what is crazy. And if that change happens, whole software industry will panic.

Since ART seems to be a rather low-level component, can we safely assume that it will be part of AOSP, and therefore open source? Or is there any chance that it will continue Google's trend of replacing open source components with proprietary ones?

No.

Google is NOT replacing Open Source applications with its own proprietary versions.

Android Open Source Project (aka AOSP) still have all the open source applications. The ART will come part of AOSP as it is going to replace DALVIK, and both of them are Open Source. Google keeps Android 100% Open Source and any one, including you can go and download AOSP and use it in your needs. The problem is, you more likely need hardware manufacturer proprietary closed source binary drivers when you compile AOSP to their device.

But when you do so, you get pure Android.

What Google is now doing, is that it is replacing AOSP applications with own versions in their OWN devices.

See, Google is just a third party manufacturer to Android like Samsung, HTC, Huawei and dozens of others are. Google is not the one what controls Android or is responsible to Android development.

Open Handset Alliance is responsible to Android development and it controls the Android. And each member has direct access to source code what every other member is doing. But before anything gets to AOSP, changes needs to be voted by members. And every member has same voting possibilities and Google is just one member among others.

So because no OHA member was willing to update or work with AOSP applications, Google couldn't touch them because it would require a passing vote. So they made own line up by partnering up with chosen OEM and then made "Google Experience" project where Android is customized to Nexus devices just like Samsung customize Android to Galaxy devices etc.

The only difference is, Google keeps Android pretty close AOSP, but with own flavor in the customization like own launcher, own video service, own email service etc. It bundles Nexus devices with its own third party services for Android (youtube, Gmail, Play store etc) and set them as default.

Just like any OEM is allowed to make Android as own but if wanted to call it Android, required only to pre-install Play and its framework. And if OEM wants to get Gmail, Youtube and other third party services available to Android but from Google, it needs to get their device to special Google program so they can call it to come "with Google!" and use Google brand. And that special program requires Google applications are set as default ones.

Conspicuously missing from the Google I/O schedule is any mention of Google+, which backs up the earlier reports that the company will be distancing itself from the Google+ branding.

More like a re-branding. Nothing's going to change. For example, I still cannot leave a comment on any of the YouTube channels I subscribe to, unless I first agree to a Google+ account being generated for me. I can't fathom the mindset that thinks this is a good way to manage your brand.

Conspicuously missing from the Google I/O schedule is any mention of Google+, which backs up the earlier reports that the company will be distancing itself from the Google+ branding.

More like a re-branding. Nothing's going to change. For example, I still cannot leave a comment on any of the YouTube channels I subscribe to, unless I first agree to a Google+ account being generated for me. I can't fathom the mindset that thinks this is a good way to manage your brand.

Don't worry, I doubt YouTube is suffering without your "497 people don't haven't heard that the bird is the word" comments.